We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SeeSuperguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The TCS brochure reasonably appears to have been “‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate [them] and recognize and comprehend therefrom . . . . the [contents thereof].’” SeeIn re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 222, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1981).

SeeAsyst Tech., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[E]ven though commercial embodiments of the '421 invention may have enjoyed commercial success, Asyst’s failure to link that commercial success to the features of its invention that were not disclosed in Hesser undermines the probative force of the evidence pertaining to the success of Asyst’s and Jenoptik’s products.”).